Benefit of the hindsight
Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 0Comments 954Joined 7 mo. ago
Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.dbzer0.com
Posts
0
Comments
954
Joined
7 mo. ago
That's pretty much a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract, same as you get from places that license musice for commercial use like Envato - it makes that token a tranferable license for that work with the licensing rights defined there and no more than that, and legally gives you no ownership (i.e. the copyright being yours) of those works.
Per those terms the copyright owner (which is not the person who has ownership of the token, as per those terms that only gives them a commercial license to use that work) can license it to other people under whatever terms they want.
Oh, and all of that is backed by Copyright laws, not by whatever technical solution was used for the NFT - they could've just as easilly used a seashell or a piece of paper as ownership "token".
If you bought an NFT which is a token for this work as per these contract terms, thinking you own the music, you've been had and should've had a lawyer check it out first.
"Bruh", your problem is exactly that in your mind it's all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you "rights" that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It's like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It's the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such "certificates" is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those "certificates" to.
It's having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That's the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere "ownership certificate" which is not legally recognized is "ownership" is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with "magical" bytes instead of "magical" words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can't understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An "ownership stamp", no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that "ownership stamp" and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it's you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That's the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a "certificate of ownership", it's there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it's some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen "logic"
Joke's on you: I constantly time travel for free!
Granted, it's always in the same direction and at the same rate of time change, but no fancy bridges are required.
Nice neoliberal propaganda picture.
The actual Leftwing solution would be to remove the fence.
Also you're "curiously" bypassing the whole "deeming people victims or oppressors based on the genetics they were born with rather than actually being victimized or victimizing others" part of my argument, which just so happens to be the core of it.
Leftwingers (and Humanists) help people based on their actual need, fight against any unjust treatment (not just for some identities but not others) and force the actual aggressors to compensate the actual victims for what they did to them, not give excuses for the aggressors or ignoring the victims because of their respective identities (unlike what's so poignantly illustrated by the way the Democrat Party in the US has treated aggressors and victims in the Gaza Genocide).
So even in that propaganda picture of yours were the Ticket-buying Inducing fence stays up, the person on a wheelchair would get help under traditional Leftwing thinking because they have an actual need for it, not because of, say, being old - if they're old but have no such need (say, a very wealthy person who had a very good life with proper food and living conditions so they did not end up on a wheelchair) they don't get a wheelchair ramp merely for being old - and similarly a person who is not old (and hence in that metaphor not in an identity deemed in need by Identity Politics) and yet is on a wheelchair also gets a wheelchair ramp under Leftwing thinking because they too have a need, which is all that matters, not whatever identity label has been given to them.
So even in the Capitalist environment where that fence stays up, Leftwingers would help those who need help because they need help, whilst the Identity Politics warriors would be deciding if they would which are identities fro which all members get help and how much help does each Identity deserve all the while ignoring the actual personal need.
Who gains from help not being given based on need and the costs (direct or indirect) being borne by entire identities deemed "aggressors" rather than by the actual oppressors? The wealthy, of course: they get to oppress to their hearts content and the cost for that if the victims are ever compensated is spread over everybody of the "identity" who happens to be the same as them, and if they're luck and were born with the "right" identity, they'll even benefit from it even though they have no need at all for that and are actual oppressors rather than victims.
I lived in the UK as an EU immigrant for a decade up to Brexit, and my feelingby the time I left was that they by then were pretty close to just being a posher version of Fascism.
Maybe Fascism is really just the natural end state of Neoliberal Capitalism: you can only go so far in helping the few pillage the wealth of the many before you have to start throwing the empoverished masses some outsiders (immigrants, other nations) and powerless insiders (like the poor and minorities) as scapegoats to distract them away from the (very much local) powerfull that are making them poorer, and as people grow increasingly skeptical of the traditional propaganda machine (for example, all the celebrating of a "growing GDP" doesn't work quite as well when people feel their pockets getting ever lighter) start forcefully cracking down on any dissent that's gaining traction and endangers the interests of the powerful.
Certainly I can't seen any end state of Neoliberalism that's not either Revolution or Authoritarism: all those politicians who got used to an environment were it's entirelly legal and totally normalized for them to get non-executive board memberships, gold-plated consulting gigs and millionaire speech-circuit fees from people they were "friendly" towards whilst in power, aren't going to turn to the people whose "friendship" yields such payouts and tell them they're going to start having to take a smaller cut of the country's wealth and pay more taxes, hence the only ultimate outcomes left are either some kind of Revolution of the masses that forces a cleanup of the political system, or increasing authoritarian measures to stop the masses from rebelling and given that if they're already rebelling it's usually too late (certainly it's far harder to stop it, impossibly so with no damage), what's normally done is to control information and to keep the masses divided and fighting amongst themselves - hence things like Identity Politics, which you can see in the US being fully weaponized - so that they don't rebel again the powerful.
The song basically being the contents of a ROM, meant that it was probably pretty easy to add a song.
It's a win, win, win.
(The first "win" being for Ukraine)
The transformation of Powerfull vs Powerless way of fighting inequality into a miriad of split identitarian fights which claim that people's victims or aggressor status is wholly defned by the genetics they were born with (rather than, you know, actually being victimized or chosing to victimize others) which naturally ended up with the oppressed fighting amongst themselves as competing "identities" for the crumbs from the Powerful absolutelly is a modern phenomenon.
If you want to see the old style, just look at how traditional Unions still left in positions of relative strenght operate: they don't fight for different salary and work condition improvements for people with different genders, skin colors or sexual orientation, the fight as all the workers vs the bosses.
Everyone being equal sounds great and all. Show me a left wing country that’s achieved it.
Show me a country were Identity Politics has merelly just reduced Inequality (as defined by the Gini Coeficient) since it became fashionable (so, the last 3 decades).
From what I can see, the countries with the most and loudest Identity Politics are the ones going in the exact opposite direction - higher inequality, collapsing social mobility - like the UK and the US. It's "curious" that after the powerless fighting as a group against the powerfull were fragmented into different "identities" based on their genetics, each fighting for their "own" group rather than all together, the powerful have managed to capture an ever increasing share of the wealth and the median quality of live has even started going down.
As for your quoting tankies as examples of "left", well, tankies are fucking authoritarians, so if you're expecting they're following the actual principles of being Leftwing rather than mindlessly parroting some Soviet slogans or whatnot and thinking Stalin was a great man, you are seriously deluded or ill informed.
It's funny that people like you defending Identity Politics have a view of what is Leftwing that is basically the Red Scare. You're helping prove my point.
It's a great game with great gameplay and which is surprisingly replayable in survival mode if you go a year or two between plays.
It's also one which, IMHO, doesn't need visual enhancements - their choice of visual style was masterful (it works and is a lot cheaper in terms of 3D modelling costs that something more realistic would have been) and it's the gameplay (which is pretty much all emergent gameplay in survival mode with no fixed set-pieces, though on a fixed game map) that makes it a great game.
That's well beyond merelly "neo-liberal" and already into Fascist.
Mind you, Israel bought the current British Government by having Israeli-linked Jewish Organisations support the campaign that smeared Corbyn as an anti-semite in order to topple him from the leadership of the Labour party and bring these guys in which, in due course given that the UK has a First Past The Post electoral system, rotated positions with the Tories and became the governing party, so zero surprise that the British Government is just a puppet of the Israeli regime.
I'm just glad the UK has left the EU so that their rot doesn't interfere with how things work in the EU (it's bad enough that we have Racist and increasingly Authoritarian Germany and Austria, not to mention the outright Fascist Hungary, we don't need the country were de facto the two main parties are Fascist).
I could hardly waste that once in a lifetime opportunity to make that joke in an English-language forum!
Sometimes you win by coming second.
I think that once one goes into software development professionally, mucking about with Linux configuration stops being something one does as a fun learning hobby and becomes something one does for work and hence can't be arsed to also do at home during one's free time.
Certainly that's how it goes for me: all I want from my Linux machine at home is that it delivers the least hindrance possible to my web-browsing, gaming, 3D printing and so on, whilst still protecting my privacy and letting me to a little bit of playing around with its more powerful features but only when I feel like it, not as a requirement to use it.
The same also applies to other techie stuff, by the way: I'm no early adopted of latest and greatest because I don't want to be somebody's beta tester, since I have enough hassle already testing and fixing my own code (were I can actually deploy good practices to reduce the amounts of bugs and hence frustration, unlike the vast amounts of amateur-hour crap out there being shipped as final products that are just beta tests that never end).
/RANT
The regression back from that peak point of opportunity and quality for the many (though, as the previous poster pointed out, in America very much only for those with a certain skin color) has happened all over the West, though in this the US is ahead of the rest.
Basically Neoliberalism was the method used to reverse most of what the Working Class fought for in the post-War period.
Also I've seen more and more in Portugal (it traditionally was mainly Brasilians, but now there are also more people from spanish speaking Latin American countries).
They're way safer around these parts than in the US.
It would have been grave if they picked the other one.
Being both Strong and a Victim at the same time is maybe the most standard Fascist trope there is.
As per another poster higher up this thread:
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very "curious" cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated "bullshit".
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to "contribute to the artist" no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn't support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?